Decoding Antisemitism An AI-driven Study on Hate Speech & Imagery Online, Third Discourse Report

This report demonstrates the breadth, diversity and adaptability of antisemitism online. Two radically distinct discourse triggers in different countries – the Covid-19 health pass in France, and trials of ex-concentration camp personnel in Germany – stimulated an equally distinct repertoire of antisemitic expression. Yet there were also parallels: a shared tendency to distort, downplay or trivialise the Holocaust, and the integration of antisemitic concepts with critiques of state power and conduct. A total of 4,246 Facebook and Twitter comments related to the health pass were analysed. The level of antisemitic discourse jumped from 3 to 15 % when discussion turned to the prosecution of a protester who accused prominent French Jews of responsibility for its imposition. The most frequent antisemitic concepts were denial of antisemitism and taboo of criticism. Those arguing the protester’s accusation was antisemitic were dismissed as malicious scaremongers seeking to curtail free speech on behalf of the political elite. Others affirmed the accusation, arguing that Jews were “overrepresented” in the French elite. Note: Since stereotypes are phenomena that exist on the conceptual, i.e. mental, level and can be reproduced using language, stereotypes are given in small caps in accordance with the conventions of cognitive linguistics. Web users frequently compared the actions of the French government in combatting Covid-19 to those of the Nazis, and protesters to the Jews. Commenters thus positioned themselves as victims through a trivialisation of the Holocaust. The two antisemitic scenarios here – one aligning protesters against Jews, the other with them; one identifying Jews with power, the other utilising their suffering – confirm the shapeshifting nature of antisemitic discourse. A total of 3,780 comments responding to trials of former concentration camp personnel in Germany were analysed, with 25 % containing antisemitic concepts. Almost all of the antisemitic comments expressed forms of so-called “secondary antisemitism.” The most frequent antisemitic concept was the rejection of guilt. Users sought to exonerate the accused – and thus the German people more widely – of responsibility for the Holocaust. Commenters suggested that even SS officers had no choice in their behaviour. Users called for a clean break with the past, seeking to restore an unblemished image of the German nation and family. Several other comments attempted to downplay guilt by comparing contemporary political scenarios or (alleged) crimes with the Holocaust, thus distorting the latter. The analysis indicates that efforts within German society to “work through” and come to terms with the past remain insufficient. There are significant gaps within what had been assumed to be a broad consensus in Germany about the Nazi crimes. Remedying this should be an urgent priority.